Thursday, February 23rd 2017

AMD Ryzen 5 Six-Core Processors to Launch in Q2-2017

AMD plans to launch six-core variants of its upcoming Ryzen processors in the second quarter of 2017 (April-June). This would mean that on March 2nd, you will be able to choose from only the top-tier eight-core Ryzen 7 series parts. The more cost-effective Ryzen 3 series will launch in the second half of 2017 (after June). Priced at $329, $399, and $499, the Ryzen 7-1800X, 1700X, and 1700 will likely cater to the high-end market, as they are priced either on par or greater than Intel Core i7-7700K. The 1700X and 1800X, according to AMD, even compete with Intel's larger HEDT Core i7 socket LGA2011v3 parts. Our older article, which deals with the pricing of the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3 series SKUs, reveals that some of these parts, such as the Ryzen 5-1600X offer very compelling value propositions at their price-points.
Add your own comment

27 Comments on AMD Ryzen 5 Six-Core Processors to Launch in Q2-2017

#1
3rold
I have my eye on this, but my wallet atm says NO!
Posted on Reply
#2
ShurikN
What about mobile chips?
Posted on Reply
#3
Basard
ShurikN said:
What about mobile chips?
Just put one in your pocket!
Posted on Reply
#4
Manu_PT
That´s bad. 8 core is overkill for most, it was important to release 6 core at least as quick as possible, but we all know the 6 core parts would canibalize the 8 core parts.
Posted on Reply
#5
Jizzler
I know when I'm buying now.
Posted on Reply
#6
Parn
Going to wait until everything settles down (price, bugs, motherboard BIOS), then choose one from the value oriented Ryzen 5.
Posted on Reply
#7
TheinsanegamerN
Manu_PT said:
That´s bad. 8 core is overkill for most, it was important to release 6 core at least as quick as possible, but we all know the 6 core parts would canibalize the 8 core parts.
It's not bad. This is the same strategy both intel and nvidia use, and it works wonderfully for them.
Posted on Reply
#8
Manu_PT
TheinsanegamerN said:
It's not bad. This is the same strategy both intel and nvidia use, and it works wonderfully for them.
Except that Nvidia and Intel didn´t have competition. With a 65 bucks G4560, I think is safe to assume on tight budget builds (aka "console killers") in the next 6 months is all about Intel. Not everyone is willing to pay 350 bucks for a CPU. Intel will have time to drop the prices this way.
Posted on Reply
#9
kruk
I hoped for a full stack release on 2nd march, but at least they wont have stock problem (and therefore inflated prices) when the lower series finally release. Also, look at the slide with the 1600x clocks - they were once rumored as 3.2 - 3.5 GHz :)
Posted on Reply
#10
Steevo
Manu_PT said:
Except that Nvidia and Intel didn´t have competition. With a 65 bucks G4560, I think is safe to assume on tight budget builds (aka "console killers") in the next 6 months is all about Intel. Not everyone is willing to pay 350 bucks for a CPU. Intel will have time to drop the prices this way.
Manu_PT said:
That´s bad. 8 core is overkill for most, it was important to release 6 core at least as quick as possible, but we all know the 6 core parts would canibalize the 8 core parts.
I don't know what you do with your PC but even my six cores aren't enough many times, and sure the IPC is mediocre on my chip, but still, threads count, and for even double the price I paid for my chip I would take 8 cores and 16 threads in a heartbeat.
Posted on Reply
#11
Manu_PT
I only game, at 144hz, that´s all. 6 core + 6 logical threads more than enough for my needs and I suppose, most of the consumer needs...
Posted on Reply
#12
medi01
ShurikN said:
What about mobile chips?
2H this year.

PS
And there is some crazy stuff like Zen + Vega + HBM2 APU planned too... ^^


Manu_PT said:
I only game, at 144hz, that´s all. 6 core + 6 logical threads more than enough for my needs and I suppose, most of the consumer needs...
"6 cores should be enough for everyone" (c) Bill Gates

On a serious note, 6 core seems to be a new 4 core. Number of things that can put it to good use is quickly growing.
Posted on Reply
#13
R0H1T
Manu_PT said:
Except that Nvidia and Intel didn´t have competition. With a 65 bucks G4560, I think is safe to assume on tight budget builds (aka "console killers") in the next 6 months is all about Intel. Not everyone is willing to pay 350 bucks for a CPU. Intel will have time to drop the prices this way.
Well if you're in only for bargain basement prices, possibly with an inflexible budget then yes the G4560 is great, assuming you also don't need/want the better IGP counterparts from AMD.
The current AMD APU are still better than Intel at the low end, also I'd assume the retailers & AMD will start clearing the old stock so one can have them cheap(er) than Intel's lowest SKU.

In other news :D
Posted on Reply
#14
Manu_PT
medi01 said:
2H this year.

PS
And there is some crazy stuff like Zen + Vega + HBM2 APU planned too... ^^



"6 cores should be enough for everyone" (c) Bill Gates

On a serious note, 6 core seems to be a new 4 core. Number of things that can put it to good use is quickly growing.
Exceot that when Bill Gates said that about memory we didn´t reach what we did now. Unless you think we are still evolving hardware wise like in the past. When a game fully utilizes 8 threads at 4,8ghz paired with 4000mhz DDR 4 (7700k in disguise).....

Think about it mate, we are going in the direction of 4k @ 144hz. Higher resolution needs better GPU, not CPU. What else you think is gonna happen CPU wise on gaming? you tell me, when all the focus is in providing 4k right now.
Posted on Reply
#15
kruk
Manu_PT said:
Exceot that when Bill Gates said that about memory we didn´t reach what we did now. Unless you think we are still evolving hardware wise like in the past. When a game fully utilizes 8 threads at 4,8ghz paired with 4000mhz DDR 4 (7700k in disguise), it is either bad optimized or I hope I´m alive in that time to see it.
Why is proper multithread balancing suddenly bad optimization? I don't get it. Isn't this the future of gaming? I mean, look at the current gen consoles ...
Posted on Reply
#16
ShurikN
medi01 said:
2H this year.

PS
And there is some crazy stuff like Zen + Vega + HBM2 APU planned too... ^^
Damn I was really hoping to buy a new full AMD powered laptop before June... I mean 2H could be July and could be November...
Posted on Reply
#17
R0H1T
ShurikN said:
Damn I was really hoping to buy a new full AMD powered laptop before June... I mean 2H could be July and could be November...
It'll probably be closer to back to school, the time around which Intel also releases their new line up, me thinks.
Posted on Reply
#18
sutyi
But... but... where is my 1400X? :(
Posted on Reply
#19
Manu_PT
Steevo said:
I don't know what you do with your PC but even my six cores aren't enough many times, and sure the IPC is mediocre on my chip, but still, threads count, and for even double the price I paid for my chip I would take 8 cores and 16 threads in a heartbeat.
medi01 said:
2H this year.

PS
And there is some crazy stuff like Zen + Vega + HBM2 APU planned too... ^^



"6 cores should be enough for everyone" (c) Bill Gates

On a serious note, 6 core seems to be a new 4 core. Number of things that can put it to good use is quickly growing.
See how I was right? Ryzen gets raped by Intel on games. 20% to 30% on CPU bound games. Just wanted to go back and quote what I said now that we know the benchmarks. Cheers.
Posted on Reply
#20
Caring1
Steevo said:
I don't know what you do with your PC but even my six cores aren't enough many times, and sure the IPC is mediocre on my chip, but still, threads count, and for even double the price I paid for my chip I would take 8 cores and 16 threads in a heartbeat.
I'm with you there, I don't want or need it for gaming, but it's capabilities as a multi core Processor is exactly what I need at that price.
Posted on Reply
#21
medi01
Manu_PT said:
See how I was right? Ryzen gets raped by Intel on games. 20% to 30% on CPU bound games. Just wanted to go back and quote what I said now that we know the benchmarks. Cheers.
There are 2 things which you seem to not quite get:
1) Intel itself "is getting raped by Intel", if you compare 8 cores to 4 cores
2) There seem to be quite a mess with mainboards. German site reported 4 to 26% higher FPS (17% on average) after BIOS update:

Verglichen mit dem ursprünglichen Bios steigert das neue UEFI die Bildrate in unserem Spiele-Parcours zwischen plus 4 und plus 26 Prozent, im Mittel gar um plus 17 Prozent! Angesichts dieses gewaltigen Leistungszuwachses mussten wir Gewissheit haben, dass unsere Werte korrekt sind, und haben mit den Asus-Boards nachgemessen. Damit erreichen wir einen Hauch mehr Geschwindigkeit in Games als mit der aktualisierten MSI-Platine.


3) CPUs importance for gaming is VASTLY overrated. You don't buy 300$+ CPU to run games at 1080p. And even if you do, you don't really care if it is 83 or 96 frames per second.

PS
Anti underdog sentiments are pathetic.
Posted on Reply
#22
Manu_PT
medi01 said:
There are 2 things which you seem to not quite get:
1) Intel itself "is getting raped by Intel", if you compare 8 cores to 4 cores
2) There seem to be quite a mess with mainboards. German site reported 4 to 26% higher FPS (17% on average) after BIOS update:

Verglichen mit dem ursprünglichen Bios steigert das neue UEFI die Bildrate in unserem Spiele-Parcours zwischen plus 4 und plus 26 Prozent, im Mittel gar um plus 17 Prozent! Angesichts dieses gewaltigen Leistungszuwachses mussten wir Gewissheit haben, dass unsere Werte korrekt sind, und haben mit den Asus-Boards nachgemessen. Damit erreichen wir einen Hauch mehr Geschwindigkeit in Games als mit der aktualisierten MSI-Platine.


3) CPUs importance for gaming is VASTLY overrated. You don't buy 300$+ CPU to run games at 1080p. And even if you do, you don't really care if it is 83 or 96 frames per second.

PS
Anti underdog sentiments are pathetic.
What if I told you that yes, I do care about 1080p and I do care about 83 or 96 fps. What If I told you that I´m a 180hz gamer and that I like all my multiplayer games to run on 180 to 200 fps for minimum input lag for e-sports, and that only with 7700k I can achieve that. So yes your logic is broken.

Also even at 60fps I´ve seen benchmarks where Ryzen had way lower minimum fps than Intel, and minimum fps is what defines a good experience. So yes I was right from the beggining and I´m not anti underdog. I´m Pro Consumer. I don´t have to defend amd just because they are a lower budget company. That makes 0 sense and enter in fanboyism territory. I care about myself and my needs, not about a company.
Posted on Reply
#23
medi01
Manu_PT said:
What If I told you that I´m a 180hz gamer and that I like all my multiplayer games to run on 180 to 200 fps for minimum input lag for e-sports, and that only with 7700k I can achieve that.
It would be hilarious fail at finding niche use to prove your point, as Ryzen runs Overwatch (the most popular refresh rate sensitive e-sport out there) at well beyond 200 fps.
Posted on Reply
#24
Manu_PT
medi01 said:
It would be hilarious fail at finding niche use to prove your point, as Ryzen runs Overwatch (the most popular refresh rate sensitive e-sport out there) at well beyond 200 fps.
Overwatch? an i3 6100 3,7ghz runs OW at more than 200fps pal, don´t make me laugh. I´m talking about many other more demanding titles. Talk to an e.sport player and he will tell you how much he wants (or doesn´t) a Ryzen cpu.
Posted on Reply
#25
kruk
Manu_PT said:
Also even at 60fps I´ve seen benchmarks where Ryzen had way lower minimum fps than Intel, and minimum fps is what defines a good experience. So yes I was right from the beggining and I´m not anti underdog. I´m Pro Consumer. I don´t have to defend amd just because they are a lower budget company. That makes 0 sense and enter in fanboyism territory. I care about myself and my needs, not about a company.
Ryzen 7 might have lower minimum FPS on a freshly installed system with no other programs/tasks running, but you will have hard time convincing me that the i7 manages to keep the min FPS lead in all games on a real world system. That is, a system which has antivirus, browser, chat, etc. running. There will be FPS dips, and the more threads the game is using, the more severe they will be. Think about it.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment